Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Now Playing at Reason.tv: What Do Dems Really Think About Immigration?
Reason Foundation's Mike Flynn talked with protesters and Dems in Denver about immigration policy to see what Donkey Party enthusiasts really want in the area. The short answer: It's totally unclear, with folks saying back off on raids of illegal workers, others pushing the breakdown of the global capitalist system and still others, including former Clinton Secretary of Energy and mayor of Denver Federico Pena, lambasting the Bush administration for not doing enough to enforce the border.
Watch now and share the confusion, before the GOP gets into the mix:
Elemenope|8.30.08 @ 5:17PM|#
In other news, two members of a party disagree on an
issue.
Republicans have also shown themselves to be fractured on this
issue.
B|8.30.08 @ 5:27PM|#
"...including former Clinton Secretary of Energy and mayor of
Denver Federico Pena, lambasting the Bush administration for not
doing enough to enforce the border."
And if the Bush administation ever started enforcing immigration
rules, this guy would probably be among the first to cry racism,
right after the editors at Reason.
Underzog|8.30.08 @ 5:29PM|#
You guys never did answer my question about when are you going
to apologize to Michelle Malkin for smearing her and when are you
going to apologize to the Haditha Marines for making it seem they
were guily even before any trial started.
As the Haditha marines were found not guilty, including one found
not guilty by a civilian court, it makes your earlier smear
implications about them sound quite stupid, doesn't it?
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
|8.30.08 @ 5:32PM|#
how are these contradictory statements?
the raids are abusive and probably illegal: check
the crony schmecapitalist system sucks: check
while we fret about everyone already here the border is still open:
check
none of those are untrue.
|8.30.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Thank the FSM! I was so afraid I would never again see the brilliance of Underzog!
Orange Line Special|8.30.08 @ 5:49PM|#
1. If Nick Gillespie were interested in the truth instead of
pushing some sort of agenda, he might point out that Pena isn't
anywhere near as tough as described. In fact, talking tough
was one of the
recommended tactics to get what they want. Note that BHO has
picked that up and used it, as has the DNC. Needless to say, Nick
Gillespie didn't know about that and clearly didn't realize which
side Pena is on.
2. If Nick Gillespie were interested in the truth instead of
pushing some sort of agenda, he'd try to follow the money on Pena;
see this that he was
involved in; most of their money came from DC. Since Nick will
never be able to figure it out on his own, see if they got any
money or if he gets any money now from companies like
WesternUnion.
3. The great majority of Americans don't really understand
everything involved in this issue due to the fact that the MSM
either ignores it or lies about it. BHO, McCain, and Barr are all
more or less on the same corrupt page, and the MSM is quite happy
that it's currently not a topic of discussion.
The best way to get educated on this topic is to click my name's
link and scan through my archives. I've got thousands of posts on
this topic covering several years, and most of it you'll never hear
from the MSM and certainly not from Reason.
|8.30.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Other than the fact that none of it is contradictory (you can think raids are cruel while still wanting to enforce the border), of course Democrats would be confused about the issue. They want to treat immigrants, you know, humanly, yet they're scared that immigrants (much like Chinese workers) are going to come in and "steal" jobs from "hard working Americans."
BakedPenguin|8.30.08 @ 6:27PM|#
...and most of it you'll never hear from the MSM and
certainly not from Reason.
Because both mentioned entities tend to filter out the psychotic
ramblings of the tinfoil brigade pissing their pants over the North
American Union.
|8.30.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Baked - I agree that the NAU is the province of the tinfoil brigade. It's also the province of half of Ron Paul's guest speakers at his rally.
|8.30.08 @ 6:40PM|#
You guys never did answer my question about when are you
going to apologize to Michelle Malkin for smearing
her...
OK...Shelly, I'm sorry you're a blithering idiot...
|8.30.08 @ 7:04PM|#
I thought that the Democratic Party was supporting open borders,
unlimited immigration, and a fast track to citizenship so that
millions of poor third world immigrants would become automatic
Democratic Party voters who will demand high taxes, high government
spending, and a much larger government.
Of course, anyone who believes that the U.S. can become more
libertarian with millions of mexican-American voters wanting
government set asides is a fool.
Orange Line Special|8.30.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Oddly enough, I have a whole category showing irrefutable
evidence that some powerful folks are pushing for a NAU. In fact,
one of Reason's fellow BHO supporters took to the pages of the WaPo
to urge BHO to create such an entity, a group led by insiders like
HenryKissinger, SamNunn, etc. promoted such an entity to Congress,
and so forth. And, with 14% of Mexico's WorkingAgePopulation living
in the U.S., we aren't that far from a de facto NAU as it is.
Look, the bottom line is I don't trust Reason's contributors for
the same reason as others don't,
and I (obviously) don't trust Reason's sockpuppet brigade
either.
In other news, if you're going to
Ronstock, be sure and read these tips.
BakedPenguin|8.30.08 @ 7:51PM|#
a group led by insiders like HenryKissinger, SamNunn, etc.
promoted such an entity to Congress...
Firstly, I don't believe they promoted political union of the three
North American states. If you have a link that doesn't go to your
site, then put it up.
Secondly, and try to get this through the tinfoil, there is NO
chance for a political union between the US, Canada and Mexico in
the forseeable future.
I (obviously) don't trust Reason's sockpuppet brigade
either...
The irony is that I (and many others) am not an open borders
advocate. However, your smarminess, racism, and loony bullshit
needs to be challenged, else real people who visit this site may
think the majority of posters here are in general agreement with
you.
Kara Boo|8.30.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Off-topic, but absolutely, positively worth a look -- Palin on
ANWAR
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836304396
|8.30.08 @ 9:50PM|#
I thought that the Democratic Party was supporting open
borders, unlimited immigration, and a fast track to
citizenship...
Wow. That's something I did not know. Can you point me to the
Democratic Party platform plank or other official output of the DNC
so I can read it for myself?
Of course, the Libertarian Party platform explicitly supports open
borders while explicitly opposing wealth redistribution. Maybe
you're confused?
|8.30.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Do we really need more people, especially unskilled
workers?
Our need for more unskilled workers is evidenced by whether there
are employers offering jobs to the unskilled. If we need unskilled
workers and they want to come, they will come. If we don't need
them or if they don't want to come, they won't come.
Or do you imagine that either you or the state is fit to judge and
impose by force what "we" collectively "need".
Orange Line Special|8.30.08 @ 10:19PM|#
MikeP is a regular font of falsity today.
1. The Dem Party does NOT support OpenBorders, and
I can't stress that point enough. What they do support is reflexive
RaceBaiting as a way to shut down debate (just one of the many
examples), combined with having no use whatsoever for
ImmigrationEnforcement and actively thwarting such attempts. That's
not the same as OpenBorders. I don't know how they
aren't the same, but Howie tells me they aren't, and I believe
him.
2. Regarding MikeP's later effort, he fails to understand the role
that subsidies and the like play in the current
EmploymentSituation. For instance, research into AgMechanization is
discouraged by the government, other things are encouraged, etc.
That results in an artificial demand for one set of skills.
|8.30.08 @ 10:42PM|#
The reason governments came into existence was to wage
wars.
The reason borders came into existence was to provide trip-wires so
there would not be be too long a lull between wars.
Peaceful anarchist, Ruthless, speaking.
Here\'s what they think about |8.30.08 @ 10:44PM|#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78&eurl=http://www.powerlineblog.com/
oversaturated|8.30.08 @ 11:44PM|#
Why so much focus on Democrats and Republicans at Reason? It seems to dominate the posts
Here\'s what they think about |8.31.08 @ 12:19AM|#
"Off-topic:
This INFURIATED me.
I guess my angry-meter is all better."
I live in Minneapolis. It is a Democratic City.
Just like Chicago in 1968, you incredibly ignorant fuck.
Mayor:
Raymond Thomas Rybak, Jr. (born November 12, 1955), universally
known as R.T. Rybak, is the current mayor of the city of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and a member of the Minnesota
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. In 2001, Rybak defeated Sharon
Sayles Belton, the first African-American and first female mayor of
the city. In the 2001 election, after running a populist campaign,
Rybak won 65% of the vote to Belton's 35%-the widest margin in city
history for a challenge to an incumbent. He took office in January
2002, and was elected to a second term in November 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.T._Rybak
City Council:
The Minneapolis City Council is the governing body of the City of
Minneapolis. The City Council is composed of 13 single member
districts, called wards. Barbara Johnson (Democratic-Farmer-Labor
[or DFL], Ward 4) is president of the council. The council is
dominated by members of the DFL Party with 12 members. The Green
Party has one member. The city has never had more than 13 wards,
but at one time there were three representatives from each area,
for a total of 39 city council members. The council assumed its
current size in the 1950s. Because of a quirk in the election
cycle, 2005 marks the first Council races since post-2000-Census
redistricting. There were no Republican candidates for either Mayor
or any City Council post in the 2005 election, however one
Republican ran for the Library Board.
The council elected in 2005, and which took office in January 2006,
is composed of:
Ward member party
1st Paul Ostrow DFL
2nd Cam Gordon Green
3rd Diane Hofstede DFL
4th Barbara Johnson (President) DFL
5th Don Samuels DFL
6th Robert Lilligren (Vice President) DFL
7th Lisa Goodman DFL
8th Elizabeth Glidden DFL
9th Gary Schiff DFL
10th Ralph Remington DFL
11th Scott Benson (Council Majority Leader) DFL
12th Sandy Colvin Roy DFL
13th Betsy Hodges DFL
1 Council Member corruption
2 References
3 See also
4 External links
Council Member corruption
in July 2001 Brian Herron (DFL) pleaded guilty to one count of
felony extortion. He admitted accepting a $10,000 bribe from a
business owner who faced numerous health and safety inspections
violations. [1] Herron served a one year sentence in federal
prison.[2]
On November 21, 2002 10 year Council Member Joe Biernat was
convicted of five federal felony charges. one count of embezzlement
, three counts of mail fraud, and one count of making a false
statement. [3] Biernat was found not guilty on extortion and
conspiracy to extort charges.[4]
In September 2005 Green Party Council Member Dean Zimmermann was
served with a federal search warrant to his home by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The affidavit attached to the warrant
revealed that the FBI has Zimmerman on video and audiotape
accepting bribes for a zoning change.[5] Zimmermann subsequently
lost his re-election campaign, and was convicted in federal court
on three counts of accepting cash from a developer and found not
guilty of soliciting property from people with business with the
city. Zimmermann was released from prison in July 2008.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_City_Council
Police Chief Dolan is a Rybak appointee:
Dolan is sworn in as Minneapolis Police Chief
Jan. 9, 2007 (MINNEAPOLIS) Timothy Dolan was sworn in as the new
Minneapolis Police Chief in the City Hall Rotunda Jan. 9, 2007.
Dolan is a Northside Minneapolis native and a 23-year veteran of
the Minneapolis Police Department.
During the ceremony Chief Dolan emphasized his commitment to
building stronger relations between the police and the community,
and to meet the city's public safety challenges head-on.
Dolan said, "Law enforcement is no longer just about the police.
It's also about community." He added, "I accept the challenges and
expectations that come with the position. I know we are going to do
it well - very well. And we are going to do it together."
Mayor R.T. Rybak said, "Chief Tim Dolan is the right person at the
right time to lead this critical effort, but we need to honestly
look each other in the eye and say that no police chief, no police
department and even no city government can win this battle in
isolation. As we celebrate this strong new leader of the
department, let's each dedicate ourselves to attacking the root
causes that have too many kids raising themselves and too many kids
having kids of their own, and dedicate ourselves to saying "no" to
those who would use our neighborhoods for illegal guns and
prostitution."
"Everyone deserves a safe place to call home," said City Council
President Barbara Johnson. "Tim Dolan has great roots in our city,
and he has a motivation to change the situation that is unique. I
am confident he is up to the task."
Mayor Rybak nominated Dolan to serve as police chief in late
September, and the Minneapolis City Council approved the
appointment Oct. 20, 2006. Rybak first named Dolan to serve as
Interim Police Chief in April of 2006 when then Chief Bill McManus
left the position to become the San Antonio Police Chief.
Before being named Interim Chief, Dolan served as Assistant Chief
under Chief McManus. Since joining the Minneapolis Police
Department in 1983, Dolan has served in many key leadership roles,
including deputy chief, commander of the 4th Precinct, director of
training, and commander of the narcotics unit and the emergency
response unit. Dolan began his career in law enforcement as a
Hennepin County Sheriffs Deputy in 1978.
Dolan holds a Master of Arts in Public Administration and Education
and a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Criminal Justice, both from
the University of St. Thomas. He completed the Police Executive
Research Forum's Senior Management Institute for Police in 2002,
and the FBI National Academy (Session 177). He is a graduate of
DeLaSalle High School in Minneapolis.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/news/20070109newsmayor_chiefdolanswearingin.asp
Here\'s what they think about |8.31.08 @ 12:21AM|#
Addendumb: Never, ever confuse Convention Host City with City Governance, you incredibly ignorant fuck.
|8.31.08 @ 12:23AM|#
Firstly, I don't believe they promoted political union of
the three North American states. If you have a link that doesn't go
to your site, then put it up.
The European Common Market wasn't promoted as a political union,
either.
Secondly, and try to get this through the tinfoil, there is NO
chance for a political union between the US, Canada and Mexico in
the forseeable future.
That's what most of the world would have said about the European
Union circa 1970, too.
Those who don't study their history are condemned to repeat it.
Horsefeathers|8.31.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Our need for more unskilled workers is evidenced by whether
there are employers offering jobs to the unskilled. If we need
unskilled workers and they want to come, they will come. If we
don't need them or if they don't want to come, they won't
come.
If a Porsche were available to me at $20,000, I'd buy it rather
than a GrandAm. That does not indicate that I need a Porsche, nor
does it demonstrate a lack of alternatives. Or course, a Porsche
available for $20,000 would likely be from a illegal chop-shop.
They provide good prices on merchandise nobody wants to pay the
market price for, too.
|8.31.08 @ 12:42AM|#
Is it possible that most Democrats and even Republicans want to enforce immigration laws without it turning into a racist roundup boondoggle?
Meanwhile in St. Paul Governan|8.31.08 @ 1:07AM|#
Chris Coleman (born 1961, Saint Paul) is a Minnesota politician
and the mayor of the state's capital city of St. Paul. In the 2005
mayoral race, he defeated incumbent St. Paul mayor Randy Kelly.
Chris Coleman took office on January 3, 2006.
Coleman spent eight years working in Hennepin County as a public
defender and prosecutor.[citation needed] Proposals to build a
metal shredder along the Mississippi River in Saint Paul inspired
his first run for the Saint Paul City Council.[citation needed]
Coleman represented Saint Paul's Ward 2 from 1997 to 2003.[citation
needed] Currently, he is also an investment management consultant
working with non-profit organizations and is also president of
United Family Practice Clinic (serving people without insurance
and/or with low income).[citation needed] Ann Mulholland serves as
Chief of Staff, having replaced Dennis Flaherty when Coleman was
elected.[citation needed]
Coleman ran as a Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate against fellow
DFLer Kelly, and won by a 69% to 31% margin.[citation needed] This
was larger than margins in pre-election polling, such as in October
2005, when Coleman was ahead of Kelly among likely St. Paul voters
by a margin of 35%.[citation needed] Kelly's loss was considered
remarkable for being an incumbent DFLer in an overwhelmingly
Democratic city and despite the respondents to the same poll also
reporting that they feel generally that the city was doing well and
was heading in the right direction.[citation needed] The large
margin in Coleman's favor was widely recognized to reflect the deep
unpopularity among Democratic voters in St. Paul of Kelly's
decision to endorse George W. Bush for president in 2004.[citation
needed]
Shortly after taking office, Coleman signed a city ordinance
banning tobacco smoking in all bars and restaurants within city
limits.[citation needed] The ban had long been opposed by former
mayor Kelly.[citation needed]
John Kerry visited St. Paul to campaign for Coleman in October 2005
although it meant campaigning against an incumbent of his own
party.[1] Wesley Clark and Bill Richardson have also personally
campaigned for him in St. Paul, while Hillary Clinton and John
Edwards have both actively supported him.[citation needed]
Mayor Coleman is a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Coalition[2], an organization formed in 2006 and co-chaired by New
York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Thomas
Menino.
Mayor Coleman is considered one of the front runners for the DFL
Endorsement for Governor in 2010.[citation needed]
Chris Coleman is son of Nicholas Coleman, Sr., a Minnesota state
senator from 1963 to 1981, who also served as state senate majority
leader, and the brother of Nick Coleman, a columnist for the
Minneapolis Star Tribune.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Coleman_(politician)
City Council:
Ward Name Party
1st Melvin Carter III Democratic Farmer Labor Party
2nd Dave Thune Democratic Farmer Labor Party
3rd Pat Harris Democratic Farmer Labor Party
4th Russ Stark Democratic Farmer Labor Party
5th Lee Helgen Democratic Farmer Labor Party
6th Dan Bostrom Democratic Farmer Labor Party
7th Kathy Lantry Democratic Farmer Labor Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Paul_Politics
David|8.31.08 @ 1:14AM|#
"Meanwhile in St. Paul Governance"
While I don't appreciate the massive cut and paste, there is
something to this.
Mike Laursen|8.31.08 @ 2:29AM|#
Trying to follow your analogy. Unskilled illegal immigrants are the Porsches in your analogy, right? Aren't Porsches regarded as higher quality than Grand Ams. So, you are saying that unskilled illegal immigrants are prized more than unskilled American citizens?
lower case j|8.31.08 @ 2:54AM|#
Lonewacko:
2. Regarding MikeP's later effort, he fails to understand the role
that subsidies and the like play in the current
EmploymentSituation. For instance, research into AgMechanization is
discouraged by the government, other things are encouraged, etc.
That results in an artificial demand for one set of
skills.
I think that's right. When a country forms policies and laws that
steer its agricultural businesses to make the assumption that there
will always be a large supply of low cost humans to do its picking
and other chores, there will be little incentive to invest in
machinery and automation to do the same.
At the end of day (or century, more like) agriculture (food
production) will be mechanized and automated. One side-effect of
having open boarders to the US for the purpose of meeting a
short-term demand for low skilled, inexpensive, workers will be
that the US will NOT be a source of the technology that unburdens
man from these tasks.
|8.31.08 @ 3:02AM|#
Both parties positions on immigration are
incomprehensible.
This is because immigration is one of those issues that spans the
contradiction between social and economic freedoms within the two
major parties.
Immigration is both a social issue - when it comes to immigrants
rights, civil rights, human rights, AND an economic issue when it
comes to jobs and wages.
The Democrats want to be for the rights of immigrants, but against
their right to work. They want to protect union labor, keeping
wages high for comparatively priviledged Americans, by actively
preventing poor people from other countries from obtaining those
jobs. It's a bit like arguing in favor of comfy waterboards. In the
end, we still plan to arrest you, throw you in prison, and ship you
back to mexico against your will, we'll just give you some water
bottles in the desert so you don't die before we get to that
part.
The Republicans meanwhile end up in the position of justifying
border enforcement by incogruously invoking the plight of the
working class, arguing that keeping immigrants out holds wages up.
Thus helping to maintain the status quo of high labor costs and
overhead that has resulted in the flight of manufacturing jobs from
the US. Draconian law enforcement in defense of the welfare state.
Why not just let economics undermine it like it's supposed to?
|8.31.08 @ 4:02AM|#
At the end of day (or century, more like) agriculture (food
production) will be mechanized and automated. One side-effect of
having open boarders to the US for the purpose of meeting a
short-term demand for low skilled, inexpensive, workers will be
that the US will NOT be a source of the technology that unburdens
man from these tasks.
Isn't it strange that people who claim to believe in the power of
markets to drive innovation turn around and claim markets can only
offer one solution when it comes to immigration?
|8.31.08 @ 5:46AM|#
Lonewacko,
1. Are you telling me that I have to believe what you say over the
words of superdestroyer? superdestroyer, say it ain't so!
2. Regarding MikeP's later effort, he fails to understand the
role that subsidies and the like play in the current
EmploymentSituation. For instance, research into AgMechanization is
discouraged by the government, other things are encouraged, etc.
That results in an artificial demand for one set of
skills.
Perhaps you should recognize that when I said...
Or do you imagine that either you or the state is fit to judge and impose by force what "we" collectively "need".
...that it covers agricultural subsidies and other market
abrogating government activities as well.
|8.31.08 @ 5:54AM|#
Isn't it strange that people who claim to believe in the
power of markets to drive innovation turn around and claim markets
can only offer one solution when it comes to
immigration?
Pretty much by tautology, the only solution markets can offer on
immigration is free migration. That is, after all, the definition
of a market as it pertains to migration.
Free migration does not mean unlimited immigration: It means
immigration limited by the demands of the market. It goes without
saying that the market should not be distorted by subsidy or tariff
that either encourages or discourages immigration or
emigration.
Elemenope|8.31.08 @ 7:26AM|#
I live in Minneapolis. It is a Democratic City.
Just like Chicago in 1968, you incredibly ignorant fuck.
----
Addendumb: Never, ever confuse Convention Host City with City
Governance, you incredibly ignorant fuck.
What on Earth are you talking about? I was infuriated by SWAT teams
knocking down doors to harass protest groups who had not *done*
anything, and you're here blathering about *city governance* and
for some reason calling me an "incredibly ignorant fuck".
What the hell is wrong with you?
|8.31.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Does it really matter? I mean at this point in the game any
politician is goign to tell the sheeple what they want to hear! its
just how the game is played at this point.
Ralston
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
Three Buck Chuck|8.31.08 @ 10:59AM|#
"Off-topic:
This INFURIATED me.
I guess my angry-meter is all better."
I think the raids were theright thing to do. The people arrested
were anything but peaceful dissenters.
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_10346122?source=rss
Anti-Globalism|8.31.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Our need for more unskilled workers is evidenced by whether
there are employers offering jobs to the unskilled. If we need
unskilled workers and they want to come, they will come. If we
don't need them or if they don't want to come, they won't
come.
The market seems to drive that, yes, but then construction quality
plunges downward, and we generate a ton of waste making junk that
needs to be replaced.
Further, if we follow the market exclusively, we need more drugs,
prostitution, landfill garbage sold at wal-mart, etc.
It's a religion to think that markets alone regulate a society, and
I doubt you'll find any libertarians who have gotten anywhere in
life believe that.
Ray G |8.31.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Despite the blurring of ideological lines between the two major
parties, the Left's core message is still one of equal
outcome over liberty.
The reason McCain has had so much trouble generating momentum among
his own base is that the Right - for all of their troubles in
elected circles - still has a seed of liberty at it's core.
So the Left has no cogent, unified message on immigration because
they simply don't care about the issue itself. They will - as a
group - go which ever way seems most expedient to their efforts at
getting elected.
The Right at least breaks down in to 2 groups. The law and order
crowd that thinks it's a small sacrifice to see our individual
rights trampled on when a Joe Arpaio rolls into a landscaping
company and cuffs all non-anglos, and the smaller, less vocal bloc
that still sees the value in a free society with relatively open
borders.
|8.31.08 @ 12:53PM|#
It's a religion to think that markets alone regulate a
society, and I doubt you'll find any libertarians who have gotten
anywhere in life believe that.
Most don't believe that.
The rest of your post is idiocy and non-sequiturs.
|8.31.08 @ 12:53PM|#
At the end of day (or century, more like) agriculture (food production) will be mechanized and automated. One side-effect of having open boarders to the US for the purpose of meeting a short-term demand for low skilled, inexpensive, workers will be that the US will NOT be a source of the technology that unburdens man from these tasks.
So what? That would be because low skilled immigrant labor would be
cheaper, so it's not like the farmers would be losing out.
I can't believe you actually think telling farmers what they can't
do would actually bring prosperity to farmers in a case that
doesn't involve externalities. Do you honestly have that little
faith in their intelligence? Really, now?
|8.31.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Wait, you believe that Walmart would sell landfill garbage on its shelves if it could get away with it? I'd like to hear this.
|8.31.08 @ 2:14PM|#
So what? That would be because low skilled immigrant labor
would be cheaper, so it's not like the farmers would be losing
out.
Slavery provided even cheaper labor than illegal immigration. No
doubt, the technology developed to replace slave labor was more
expensive too, and probably, at least initially, drove up the price
of cotton. Are you sure you want to argue that what is most
economical in the short term is always the best solution?
Technology improves and becomes cheaper and more efficient over
time. How much cheaper and efficient does illiterate manual
become?
|8.31.08 @ 3:10PM|#
,
I would say that only one side of this debate is arguing that
people should be prohibited from shopping their labor around to
anyone willing to pay for it. And it is not the open borders
side.
|8.31.08 @ 3:43PM|#
MikeP,
You should review Barackobama.com. First, there is no mention of
deportation. If an individual gets to the U.S. they get to stay.
Also, no internal enforcement of immigration laws and no profiling
at the border. Third, the "bringing out of the shadows" and a fast
track to citizenship supported by SEnator Obama means that the
Democrats want all illegal immigrants made into citizens so that
they vote goodies for themselves by voting for Democrats. And last,
Senator Obama appears to see immigration as a paperwork problem. If
you give the 20 million illegal aliens the proper paperwork, then
they will apparently become proper law abiding people who pay
taxes, use their real identites and follow the laws.
|8.31.08 @ 4:43PM|#
The great thing about the Reason TV theme music is that it will sound as outdated 50 years from now as it does today.
|8.31.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Are you sure you want to argue that what is most economical
in the short term is always the best solution?
Whatta load. The argument is that freedom works...which apparently
means slavery to you.
Orange Line Special|8.31.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Pardon me if I didn't waste my time reading most of the comments
after the one I left. My eyes glazed over when I saw MikeP failing
to understand which universe we live in. Now, some of the
libruhtarian ideas might work in that universe, but here in ours we
will never have a fully libruhtarian government. Therefore, the
rational libruhtarian (if he's still around) needs to adapt to our
reality. Our reality also includes some really bad people in other
countries who'd do things like flood us with workers loyal to their
country in order to obtain power inside our country. Which brings
up another example of libruhtarian thinking: a complete ignorance
of history.
Click my name's link and look through my archives to find out
what's really going on with this issue. I've got literally
thousands of posts about it, and most people will learn a lot.
|8.31.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I think this is honestly one of the worst threads I've ever attempted to wade through on this site. I can't tell who is trolling and who is just an idiot. I still cant understand what the hostility about the tangent regarding the police raids was about. All I could make if it was a lot of profanity, and a couple huge wikipedia cut and pastes about governance. I am thoroughly confused.
Elemenope|8.31.08 @ 6:48PM|#
Robbie, you aren't the only one. That's the first time I've been called...whatever it is he called me, for bringing up oppressive police raids.
Kip|8.31.08 @ 7:29PM|#
"Robbie, you aren't the only one. That's the first time I've
been called...whatever it is he called me, for bringing up
oppressive police raids."
I waded through this thread and will next be renting and burning my
clothes. But I am curious why elemenope brough up police raids on
activists in response to a link showing Democrat operatives
delighting in the potential political positives of death and
desaster. Where's the connection?
(summarily rents and burns contaminated garments)
Elemenope|8.31.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Kip, there is no connection...there just doesn't seem to be the obligatory Weekend Thread where it would be appropriate to bring it up. Hence, I attempted a mild thread-jack on a perfectly boring thread (the other two viable alternatives already had 100+ posts).
Kip|8.31.08 @ 8:23PM|#
"there just doesn't seem to be the obligatory Weekend Thread
where it would be appropriate to bring it up."
Makes sense. BTW, is anyone else finding H&R is doing weird
things computerly speaking? Not as bad as in the olden days, but
still, kinda strange. Perhaps one of the hamsters has been
reserected.
|8.31.08 @ 9:27PM|#
Kip
I think it's something to do with the split between the Convention
blog and the regular one. It sometimes looks like the threads are
in a different order or something.
|8.31.08 @ 9:43PM|#
Whatta load. The argument is that freedom works...which
apparently means slavery to you.
If you're idea of "freedom" means disempowering the majority of
people who want control of their borders, and some accounting of
who's coming into their country and why, then I submit freedom
obviously isn't working for them.
It's a strange, strange kind of freedom that always seems to wind
up giving a majority of people exactly the kind of society they
don't want.
Mike Laursen|8.31.08 @ 10:00PM|#
Our reality also includes some really bad people in other
countries who'd do things like flood us with workers loyal to their
country in order to obtain power inside our country.
This paranoid notion you have that Mexicans in the United States
are minions of MexicanGovernment diverges quite a bit from
reality.
Mike Laursen|8.31.08 @ 10:02PM|#
It's a strange, strange kind of freedom that always seems to
wind up giving a majority of people exactly the kind of society
they don't want.
Nothing strange about it. Freedom has nothing to do with what the
majority does or does not want.
|8.31.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Nothing strange about it. Freedom has nothing to do with
what the majority does or does not want.
And there you have it. Libertarianism: Declaring the fish free to
swim in the pond, while draining the pond out from under them.
|8.31.08 @ 10:13PM|#
If you're idea of "freedom" means disempowering the majority
of people who want control of their borders, and some accounting of
who's coming into their country and why, then I submit freedom
obviously isn't working for them.
You may not know it, but the typical open borders position is that
there would be both control and accounting at the borders. It's
just that the visas issued to those entering the country would have
neither quota nor expiration.
|8.31.08 @ 10:28PM|#
superdestroyer,
I went to barackobama.com. The word you are looking for is
'amnesty', not 'open borders'. Barack Obama and the Democratic
Party support amnesty. They do not support open borders or
unlimited immigration as you said in your first comment.
I am afraid you have forced me to agree with Lonewacko. That
probably makes him as sad as it makes me.
Elemenope|9.1.08 @ 1:33AM|#
MikeP has done the unthinkable.
He fed the Lonewacko.
They change after midnight!!!
Mike Laursen|9.1.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Libertarianism: Declaring the fish free to swim in the pond,
while draining the pond out from under them.
In the context of this thread, I'll assume your fish/pond analogy
is your way of saying Americans are losing their jobs, or the
American economy is tanking, because of all those Mexicans sneaking
across the border. And we open-borders libertarians suck because we
don't care about our fellow Americans.
Let's say every bit of your analysis of the economic situation is
correct. Then I would understand why the majority of Americans
would want to keep out all those Mexicans.
But let's get the definitions right. They would be engaging in
democracy, which is not the same thing as freedom although it is
conflated with it. They would be decreasing freedom: the freedom of
the Mexicans to seek employment, and the freedom of employers who
would employ them.
(By the way, I don't think your analysis of the situation is
correct. I don't see the evidence that Americans are being put out
of work by Mexicans.)
And a question: If you're upset about the current Mexican
immigration status quo, why would you be upset with libertarians
about it. We're powerless. If someone is draining the pond, it
ain't us. You might want to take a look at the folks who are
actually in power.
|9.1.08 @ 1:46AM|#
Three Buck Chuck wrote:
I think the raids were theright thing to do. The people
arrested were anything but peaceful dissenters.
I think we should all be very skeptical about the "weapons"
collected by the police. The already urine buckets look like a
false alarm
(http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/6325/national-lawyers-guild-in-pre-rnc-raids-urine-was-not-a-weapon):
Bruce Nestor, chapter president of the Minnesota National
Lawyers Guild, further explained the grey water and urine buckets
for the Minnesota Independent.
"Sheriff Fletcher does not have three buckets of urine. There are
two buckets of gray water in the bathroom that were collected from
a downstairs sink. It's part of a permaculture program to minimize
impact on the environment. They disconnected the sink drainage from
the sewer system and use it for toilet water, to use less water
when they flush.
The other bucket was collected from an illegal garage apartment.
The guy had been living there for years, and did not have a working
toilet.
Yes, he peed in a bucket. But he did not have anything to do with
the RNC. He has nothing to do with the people living in the house.
He has nothing to do with protests. It was seized from an apartment
that has absolutely nothing to do with the people in the home or
any plan to protest the RNC."
|9.1.08 @ 1:51AM|#
Mike Laursen wrote:
Nothing strange about it. Freedom has nothing to do with what
the majority does or does not want.
And then a mysterious no-name replied:
And there you have it. Libertarianism: Declaring the fish free
to swim in the pond, while draining the pond out from under
them.
Since Mike's point is essentially the same point made by de
Tocqueville and Mill, going under the heading "tyranny of the
majority", I have to ask: are you even a liberal? or do you defend
some sort of democratic totalitarianism? or is this conversation
just confusing you somehow?
|9.1.08 @ 5:20AM|#
Whenever I'm considering an immigration-related issue, I tend to
ask myself how the same question would sound by substituting
another state instead of another country.
Imagine for a second that you live in a 'rich' state... let's say
Connecticut. Would it be within your rights to say that people from
Alabama should not be allowed to move to Connecticut because they
would depress wages? Is there something about people from Alabama
that is inherently different than people from Mexico? Is the
artificial Alabama border any different from the artificial Mexican
border?
To connect it to parts of this discussion... we certainly would not
allow Connecticut to impose this restriction. It would be absurd to
allow them to. Even if 100% of residents wanted to, we simply
wouldn't let them, and we certainly wouldn't defend their right to
impose this restriction. Would you?
|9.1.08 @ 7:36AM|#
Mike,
Is there really a difference between open borders and amnesty. The
both mean that anyone who comes to the U.S. gets to stay and that
there will be no attempt to control the borders of the U.S.
How can Senator Obama talk about border control with amnesty, no
profiling, and no additoinal CBP officers?
Sandman
At least the residents moving from Alabama do not try to
reestablish Alabama in Conn. Those from Alabama do not insist that
people in Comm. pay higher taxes, learn a new language, and start
sending their children to private school. The people from Alabama
do not establish neighborhoods that are openly hostile to those
already living in Conn. Those from Alabama do not steal identities,
commit tax fraud and welfare fraud, and create a huge burden on
social services.
Why is cheap dry wall so important that even libertarians are
willing to pay much higher taxes and willing to give up the ability
to live in their own neighborhoods to get it?
Elemenope|9.1.08 @ 7:59AM|#
At least the residents moving from Alabama do not try to
reestablish Alabama in Conn.
Hah! Welcome to Rhode Island, the most northern southern state in
the country.
And need I mention the incredible amounts of country music that
people in NH listen to.
|9.1.08 @ 9:55AM|#
All I know is if McCain and that bimbette get into office the US
as a hole is totally and 100% screwed! You though the Bush Regime
was bad? You aint seen nothing yet!
Jiff
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
|9.1.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Welcome to Rhode Island, the most northern southern state in
the country.
Rhode Islanders and Massholes are anathema to good Connecticut
folk. We only tolerate them because we have to.
At least the residents moving from Alabama do not try to
reestablish Alabama in Conn.
Southerners are not allowed in CT, so your allegory is idiotic. I
only wish we could set up a wall between us and Massachusetts.
Elemenope|9.1.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Rhode Islanders and Massholes are anathema to good
Connecticut folk. We only tolerate them because we have
to.
Sez the guy who just vacationed in Rhode Island. Nice try, Epi, but
we all know how you *really* feel.
I only wish we could set up a wall between us and
Massachusetts.
Now that's an idea I can subscribe to.
Mike Laursen|9.1.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Is there really a difference between open borders and
amnesty.
Well, yeah, for the people who try to come here after the
amnesty.
|9.1.08 @ 2:14PM|#
In the context of this thread, I'll assume your fish/pond
analogy is your way of saying Americans are losing their jobs, or
the American economy is tanking, because of all those Mexicans
sneaking across the border. And we open-borders libertarians suck
because we don't care about our fellow Americans.
No, you suck because what you're attempting to pawn off as
"freedom" is absolutely worthless. Apparently, your conception of
freedom doesn't include the freedom of a freely associated group (a
nation), to define the criteria for membership or use of it's
facilities.
Democracy, in and of itself, may not be freedom, however, the right
to political self-determination is. If you don't like democracy
(and it has it's drawbacks), how do you suggest a nation determines
it's political course?
What you're proposing as "freedom" is only freedom only in the same
sense being abandoned on the moon would be, and it's approximately
as attractive. Sure you'd be free. But at what cost, and why would
anyone want that kind of freedom?
If you want your freedom so badly, why don't you buy yourself a
private island? They can be had for little more than the cost of an
average middle-class home. And you can make the rules you like, and
invite anyone from any country you like to join you.
I'll tell you why you don't. Because what you really want isn't
freedom. What you want is the benefits of living in a society with
other people, without the bother of having to make accommodations
to other members of that society. You simply want to re-write the
rules of society to your own taste, and call it "freedom". At the
end of the day, you are merely another flavor of tyrant, and your
philosophy offers no more freedom than any other.
(By the way, I don't think your analysis of the situation is
correct. I don't see the evidence that Americans are being put out
of work by Mexicans.)
I don't recollect making any analysis. Would you care to quote it
to me?
|9.1.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Since Mike's point is essentially the same point made by de
Tocqueville and Mill, going under the heading "tyranny of the
majority", I have to ask: are you even a liberal?
No. Not No, Hell No! I'm not even a libertarian. But that's ok -
neither are you or most of the other people posting here.
While I am not a libertarian, I am very familiar with
libertarianism. Actual libertarianism can be summed up in one
sentence. Somehow, I have the feeling very few people posting here
would be able to tell me what that sentence is.
|9.1.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Apparently, your conception of freedom doesn't include the
freedom of a freely associated group (a nation), to define the
criteria for membership or use of it's facilities.
I'll grant that a nation has the authority to define the criteria
for membership -- i.e., citizenship -- and the use of its
explicitly owned facilities if you'll grant that a nation does not
have the legitimate authority to define the criteria for residence,
for private accommodation, employment, or association, or for use
of commons or travel on rights of way.
Orange Line Special|9.1.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Mike Laursen says to me: This paranoid notion you have that
Mexicans in the United States are minions of MexicanGovernment
diverges quite a bit from reality.
ML is subtly distorting my position; whether ML is doing that
because he can't figure things out or intentionally isn't known.
The issue isn't they're "minions", it's that they can be swayed by
those who are in effect "minions". The later use EthnicSolidarity.
Some people who are in effect minions are GilCedillo (CA Dem state
sen), FabianNunez (CA Dem state assm), etc. Those two - and many
more - frequently act like little more than MexicanAgents.
asfda|9.1.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Haha wow it's shocking that people going to a convention and people protesting it would want different things.
|9.1.08 @ 3:44PM|#
I support greatly liberalizing immigration AND want the
government to do a better job securing the border. Just as
liberalizing laws on alcohol was necessary to do a better job
keeping the streets safe from bootlegger gangsters, liberalizing
immigration laws is necessary to get the borders under
control.
I decry no-knock raids, even as I complain about drug gangs causing
increased violence in poor neighborhoods. Contradiction? That's
because I'm an anti-prohibitionist. You know, like most Democrats
are on immigration.
Mike Laursen|9.1.08 @ 4:07PM|#
If you don't like democracy (and it has it's drawbacks), how
do you suggest a nation determines it's political
course?
No, democracy is OK. It's the best way we have for a group to make
decisions. It's imperfect. And every time a vote is taken, there is
usually a minority or minorities that are on the losing side. So,
democracy really isn't about individual freedom. It's about group
decision making.
Letting a group of people rule themselves democratically is giving
them a group freedom. For example, if the Union had let the South
secede, they would have been giving the South a collective freedom.
That still doesn't mean that individual freedom would have been
advanced in the South.
I don't recollect making any analysis.
OK, fine. All your worries about Mexican immigrants aren't based on
any analysis.
Mike Laursen|9.1.08 @ 4:17PM|#
ML is subtly distorting my position...
I don't subtly distort your position, Lonewacko. I blatantly f with
you for the fun of it.
Why do you think that some illegal immigrant from Mexico cares more
about what FabianNunez thinks than he cares about than all the
influences in favor of assimilation: dreams of owning a nice home
and car, hopes of getting a better job, wanting to talk to cute
English-speaking girls, American movies and TV, etc. etc.
etc.
Have you ever watched Telemundo or Univision? Have you seen all the
learn-to-speak-English commercials they run? Have you seen how much
English pops up in the middle of conversation in their talk shows
and youth-oriented programming? It's traditional Spanish-speaking
culture that is threatened.
|9.1.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Same brainless arguments. The market demands more unskilled immigration. No it doesn't. Take the recent raid in Mississippi where they rounded up 600 illegals at Howard industries. Well guess what happened. American citizens were lining up out the door to take those jobs that were going to illegals. Granted Howard industries is going to have to pay a higher wage, FICA taxes etc etc. But so do the vast majority of employers in this country. Illegal aliens in reality are just two notches up the scale from slave labor. Sure some of them can make pretty good money, but not as good as an American citizen in the same line of work. As long as we have a welfare state and massive regulations on the private sector, the idea that we should have open borders or more unskilled labor is the crap of buffoons. That's why Reason keeps pimping it.
|9.1.08 @ 6:57PM|#
"Democracy, in and of itself, may not be freedom, however, the
right to political self-determination is. If you don't like
democracy (and it has it's drawbacks), how do you suggest a nation
determines it's political course?"
I'm hardly saying that the people of the USA shouldn't have the
right to set their course. I'm simply trying to convince them that
they would be better off with a more liberal immigration policy.
Arguing in favor of an unpopular position is hardly subverting
democracy.
|9.1.08 @ 10:27PM|#
"Slavery provided even cheaper labor than illegal immigration.
No doubt, the technology developed to replace slave labor was more
expensive too, and probably, at least initially, drove up the price
of cotton."
No doubt? Because that would be the cotton gin, and no, it didn't
drive up the price of cotton.
|9.1.08 @ 10:32PM|#
"Our reality also includes some really bad people in other
countries who'd do things like flood us with workers loyal to their
country in
order to obtain power inside our country."
"The issue isn't they're "minions", it's that they can be swayed by
those who are in effect "minions". The later use EthnicSolidarity.
Some people who are in effect minions are GilCedillo (CA Dem state
sen), FabianNunez (CA Dem state assm), etc. Those two - and many
more - frequently act like little more than MexicanAgents"
OLS, you are delusional. Seek help.
Mike Laursen|9.1.08 @ 11:49PM|#
Take the recent raid in Mississippi where they rounded up
600 illegals at Howard industries. Well guess what happened.
American citizens were lining up out the door to take those jobs
that were going to illegals. Granted Howard industries is going to
have to pay a higher wage, FICA taxes etc etc.
Are you sure about all of that. The same AP story that talks about
Americans lining up for the jobs also says that Mississippi has a
labor shortage. It also says that the company has/had? a total of
4000 employees; that means 3400 non-illegal employees. It also
appears that the illegal immigrants were being pressured to join
the union, that the union would have been happy to ignore their
illegal status if they had done so. Howard Industries also claims
it didn't know any of the employees were illegal -- which implies,
whether they are telling the truth about that or not, that they
have been paying out all their FICA taxes.
Illegal aliens in reality are just two notches up the scale
from slave labor.
Agreed. A different way of amending that situation would be to make
it legal for them to be here. Then they would have legal recourse
when abused, stronger bargaining position, etc.
|9.2.08 @ 12:25AM|#
Illegal aliens in reality are just two notches up the scale
from slave labor.
Yeah, but that puts them one notch above illegal aliens who got
deported.
|9.2.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Mike Laursen | September 1, 2008, 11:49pm | #
Agreed. A different way of amending that situation would be
to make it legal for them to be here. Then they would have legal
recourse when abused, stronger bargaining position,
etc.
Yep that's the answer. Dump more poor people on the taxpayer. You
corporate welfare pimps are hilarious.
Applicants line up to fill jobs
Mike Laursen|9.2.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Yep that's the answer. Dump more poor people on the
taxpayer. You corporate welfare pimps are hilarious.
Huh. Part of the deal of being here legally is that they we would
make sure they are all paying all of the taxes everybody else has
to pay.
That's if there are any taxes they're escaping paying right now. I
doubt that, since they are on a payroll.
|9.2.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I've got news for ya, poor people use much more in local, state, and federal services than taxes they pay. A tight labor market means higher wages for those on the bottom of the economic ladder making it easier to move into the Middle Class. Everyone can't be a systems analyst. The open border zealots see the great gains that cheap labor provides while the taxpayer suffers due to higher local and state taxes.
Mike Laursen|9.2.08 @ 1:08PM|#
I've got news for ya, poor people use much more in local,
state, and federal services than taxes they pay.
That is not news. Are we going to get into judging people's worth
by the amount of taxes they pay vs. the amount of services they
consume? Who says that a person who is poor today is going to
remain poor in a few years. Who says that Mexican immigrants, if
they could be here legally, would all be doing low-wage work. They
could work their way into the middle class.
A tight labor market means higher wages for those on the bottom
of the economic ladder making it easier to move into the Middle
Class.
Higher wages also mean higher prices. It's not a simple
single-variable equation. Higher wages are not synonymous with more
wealth. One can make a strong argument that it's better for the
economy to have lower wages if they are accompanied by lower
prices. The long-term goal of economic growth is to have more
wealth with less time spent laboring. In a healthy economy it
should be possible to live decently on an unskilled laborer's
salary, to retire or semi-retire at a relatively young age,
etc.
|9.2.08 @ 3:22PM|#
The long-term goal of economic growth is to have more wealth
with less time spent laboring.
There's more than one way to do that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245